/sci/ - Science & Math

I think you have bigger problems to worry about such as what the hell happened to the exclusion principle?

What would the particles momentum be? Surely it wouldn't be finite, which coincides with the uncertainty principle.

...Ok, when you're thinking that deeply into this shit I think it's time to go out and get a bit of booze in your system, mate.

I want to reply, and even though relativity and quantum mechanics is interesting and I have seen the uncertainty principle, I don't really know what to answer.

How would you measure the position of a black hole singularity with anywhere near the requisite precision to deal with the uncertainty principle?

>>1382662
New tripfag is a moron. Please leave /sci/

>>1382654

Good point also. All those particles occupying the same space...what the fuck happens to quantum mechanics?

>>1382627
>matter compresed to a single point

An electron is matter compressed to a single point, so is a quark, or anyother elementary particle. You have problems understanding physics.

Can you determine with any certainty what the exact position of the singularity is? Can you also determine with any certainty what the mass of the singularity is?

>>1382685

You fail, it's all strings man.

>>1382682

It's easy, I can fire lasers or use background radiation to locate the black hole precisely, as none of these will affect it in anyway, unlike with particles like e-, where the act of taking measurements fucks with everything.

I think it would be prudent to point out that a black hole is where space collapses to a single point from the perspective of someone OUTSIDE of the event horizon. The inside of a black hole looks very different than the outside.

>>1382627
see
>>1318871

>>1382627
see
>>1381871

>>1382685

e- and leptons are not single points...

They have volumn.

My understanding is the black holes are a single point.

But that aside, I can't accurately measure than trajectory and position of a lepton. I can however measure a blackhole. So doesn't a lepton in a black hole violate the principle, or would Schrodinger like to have a word with me, since I can't directly observe the lepton within the blackhole.

>>1382716

How would you calculate the particles momentum?

>>1382713

hahahaha oh god i lol'd.
that shit is awful, and the person is actually being serious.

>>1382721

p=mv

black holes have mass and velocity, and thus momentum. If the particle is trapped within the black hole, and the black hole is a single point, the particle must be moving uniformly with the black hole, thus momentum of particle=momentum of black hole

>>1382727
>>1382727
http://www.physorg.com/news5794.html

>>1382740

But the particle is not the black hole.

Surely as soon as the particle goes past the event horizon it has infinite momentum? If that's the case then H-berg's UP is not violated.

>>1382751

>implying either that post or that link get anywhere close to answering this question.

fuck off tablelamp, you suck at science.

>>1382769

How does it have infinite momentum, it still has finite mass, and velocity is defined as rate of change in position, and it's position is that of the black hole? Once it collapses to the single point that is the black hole, it's position is that of a single point, traveling through space with finite and measurable velocity.

>>1382716

>e- and leptons are not single points...They have volumn.

LMAO, you are talking out your ass.
No, they are "point" particles.
GTFO!

>>1382627
How would you like to know the position of a singularity? There is an event horizont

>>1382792

How is something a point if it is delocalized over an area?

>>1382693
>You fail, it's all strings man.

STRING THEORY IS NOT SCIENCE. IT HAS MADE NO VERIFIBLE PERDICTIONS AT ALL.
IT IS NOT TAUGHT IN MOST PHYSICS DEPRTMENTS, NOR IS IT PART OF STANDARD DEGREE PROGRAMS!
ONLY UNDERAGE POP-SCIENCE FAGGOTS CITE STRING THEORY AS SCIENCE!

GTFO table!

>>1382794

Sorry, I didn't mean momentum, I meant dispersion of the momentum.

>>1382830

It's not taught at undergrad because it is too advanced.

Almost every master's course in theoretical physics offers courses on string theory.

Not table, but I'm guessing you've never studied string theory?

>>1382810
I don't know anything about relativity or black holes, but let's say that I build a giant flashlight on side of the black hole and turn it. Standing on the other side of the black hole, from measuring what light reaches me directly, what light is refracted, and what light never shows up, can I not find the position of a black hole?

Also, I could find it's position by measuring it's gravitational effects on surrounding objects.

>>1382829
OMFG you really dont understand physics at all.
Delocalized means it has no definite position in its unobserved state, the position doenst exist until observed.

When observed it takes define position, a point in space. If you take a mometum observation after the position observation, the postion will delocalize again. Its basic QM!

FUCK OFF TABLE!

>>1382846

Even if you could find its "position", that doesn't account for the fact that once the particle passes the event horizon, in your opinion it will be part of the singularity...meaning that the dispersion of its momentum will not be finite as it has gone from the EH to the singularity in 0 time.

>>1382830
His point, I believe, was that there is still reasonable doubt the elementry particles are not "point" particles

>>1382830

Dr capslock obviously isn't a member of a physics department.

>>1382856

Nigger, I know this shit! What you are saying is that e- are points. I'm saying they are delocalized. Something being delcalized and something being a point ain't the same thing.

What I was asking was that since we can't really measure them do this problem of observations and delocalization, what if we put it in a blackhole and measured the position and momentum of the black hole. If the e- is now part of that singularity, then it's position and momentum should be the same as black hole, which would mean that we know that information about it, violating Heisenberg.

>>1382875

>implying you can measure the position and momentum of a black hole

>>1382843
>>1382843

>Almost every master's course in theoretical physics offers courses on string theory.

WOW, that so fucking wrong it doenst even make sense.

1) I asssume you ment master program

2) "THEORTICAL PHYSICS" ISNT A FUCKING SUBFIELD OF PHYSICS YOU RETARD. I can't choose just choose "theortical physics".


3) only like 10 schools in the US have string theory courses, most universities dont have such nonsesne. Most of the ones that do have string theory, teach it in the math department, not physics!

tablelamp you suck cocks!

>>1382894

You are so mad you are pretty much incoherent.

>2) "THEORTICAL PHYSICS" ISNT A FUCKING SUBFIELD OF PHYSICS YOU RETARD. I can't choose just choose "theortical physics".

I am not continuing this any further because you
1) Keep using the caps lock
2) Have no idea what you are talking about

Good day to you.

>>1382627
>doesn't that break Heisenberg's uncertainty principle

Take your nonsense elsewhere. This "principle" isnt a first principle, you can derive this shit from commutation relations and operator theory.
The uncertainly principle isnt alwasy true!

So yeah just do the fucking math and see if we still get uncertainly. Its not that fucking hard you piece of shit!

>>1382894

>
2) "THEORTICAL PHYSICS" ISNT A FUCKING SUBFIELD OF PHYSICS YOU RETARD. I can't choose just choose "theortical physics".

OBVIOUSLY YOU NEVER PLAYED HALF LIFE YOU NITWIT

>>1382938

GOD DAMN IT

>>1382909
>>1382909
ohh, CAPS LOCKS GET YOU MAD?
YOU STUIDITY MADE ME RAGE A LITTLE

in any case, FYI:
You cannot just choose "theortical physics" for masters or Phd. "Theortical physics" isnt a subfield of physics.

>>1382938
No, wow, you like 10? 12?

>>1382944

Oh my god. That wasn't even meant to be a troll post. How stupid are you?

>>1382938

>>1382952
referencing video games as science?
Sounds like a underage troll to me

>>1382627
>>1382627
>>1382627

For anyone out there that might actually believe the imbecile that keeps saying you cannot do a masters in theoretical physics, I leave you the following links for your own amusement:

http://www.fysik.su.se/english/student/programmes/masters/theoretical/
http://basil.web.kau.se/physicsmaster/T/master_th.html
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/prospectus/graduate/theoretical_physics
http://www.manchester.ac.uk/postgraduate/researchdegrees/researchdegrees/bysubject/course/?code=0670
6
http://www.liv.ac.uk/maths/TheorPhys/

Making an obvious joke=trolling. I wasn't aware that a requirement for 4chan is to take absolutely everything serious.

>>1382980

It's all a samefag , almost definitely the underage guy who keeps using capslock.

>>1382987

Huh? No, I made the dumb joke. The other guy who has been arguing in here is someone else.

But could you actually find the exact point of the singularity? I thought that anything within the event horizon cannot be seen by an external observer. By that alone how could accurately pinpoint the exact position of the singularity when you can't see further than the event horizon.

>>1383004

No i know you made the joke. I meant all the macro replies to it saying it was a troll were the samefag.

>They still believe standard model has all the answers

>>1382969
You still don't get it. Let me dumb it down more for you. A field of physics would be something like particle physics, or condensed matter physics, it is a certain "type" of physics. A certain research area.

Now in your field, you can choose to do theory, experimental, computational, etc. This is the way you will approch your field. This is the "methodology" you will use in your field.

You could not just choose to do "therotical physics", it is a meaningless statement, without the field. It be like someone asking me what kinda stuff I like to cook, and I said oven. Oven is the "method" i use to cook not what i cook.

All the cites you listed all said what fields they offered. They are essentially programs in those fields. You get a degree in that field of physics, not in "theroy".

Do you get it now little guy?

>>1383116
didn't read, fapped to tits

>>1383116
>>1383116
>>1383116


HAHA
OH WOW

He really doesn't know what Theoretical Physics is.

So when I'm finished doing my masters, and I get my MSc in Theoretical Physics , it won't actually exist, I should have an MSc in Methods or some shit.

not sure if troll

>>1383116
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoretical_physics

lol first 7 words "Theoretical physics is a branch of physics"

>>1383139
So what is theortical physics then?
Explain?

>>1383139
So what do you do your research on then?
What is therotical physics?

>>1383158
Theoretical physics is just math heavy non experimental physics.
I done my undergraduate degree in mathematics, which isn't uncommon for people doing masters in theoretical physics.

My course doesn't start until September, but I just got confirmation for my supervisor for my dissertation, which is going to be on collisionally inhomogeneous Bose-Einstein condensates.

Wow, there is always one arrogant prick that comes in a ruins an otherwise informative thread. I guess /sci/ is incapable of discussing anything under than tractors or atheism.

>>1383172
Lol, so yeah you do have a field, what ever field Bose–Einstein condensates is in (atomic physics I think? AMO?).

In any case, that is your field, that is the research area you work in. You will go to conferences on that field, and talk with other in that field. You will collaborate in that field.

See, if you just say "thoertical physics", it is a meaningless statement. No one knows wtf you are doing, or what your research is about.
All they know if you use theortical physics for somthing.

It is becuase "theorical physics" really isnt a field. But you say atomic and we at least have some basis for wtf you do.

It may just be in the UK that you have such a fucked up way of looking at things, all your links were form the UK.

>>1383264

this is obviously going nowhere as you seem adamant that theoretical physics isn't a branch of physics.

2 links were from sweden.

>>1383264

fgi

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=theoretical+physics+graduate+programs&aq=0sx&am
p;aqi=g-sx2g-msx1&aql=&oq=Theoritical+physics+gradu&gs_rfai=CgJ-vwn46TP2CHIfAzQTWkKT_CwA
AAKoEBU_Qm8FB&fp=36ec6be010d257f

>>1383341
It is a methodology, not a field of physics.
I mean what courses do you take, that are just "theortical physics" with no "field" what so ever?

Math Methods and Applied analysis and all those courses are actaully just bits and peices from different math courses.

Its ok though, I imagine once you get to masters you will understand what a field of physics is better. I wouldnt expect you to get it from just your undergrad shit.

Good luck little guy!

>>1383412
lol

And good luck to you. I guess you start your final year of high school after summer right?

Could someone briefly explain the equation in the OP to a stupid person (AKA an english major)

>>1383424

It says that the dispersion of the momentum of a particle, times the dispersion of it's position is always greater than or equal to "h bar" over 2.

This basically means that the certainty of position and momentum cannot both be known to an arbitrary level of accuracy.

>>1383412
is it just me that's noticed how many different ways this guy has spelled theoretical ITT ?

>>1383428
Nope, Im a physicist working at the LHC (doing my Phd). Its called experimental particle physics (FYI).

>>1383446
Im fucking tired, and hate grammer...lol

>>1383452
yeh sure buddy.

>>1383458
believe what you want, i dont give a fuck

>>1383452
What's your Ph.D on?

You seemed to get very angry about string theory earlier in this thread, but you must be around a few of them at CERN? Two of my friends worked there (one actually worked at Tevatron), both string theorists.

>>1383424

the h with the line through it is a stand in for h/2pi, where h is plank's constant

delta p and delta x are changes in momentum and position, respectively. As you can see from the inequality, the left side must always be greater than the right side. So if I were to make a very accurate measurement so that delta p were very small, delta x would have to be very large to compensate for it.

Essentially, that is a 2 second simplified to hell version of Heisenberg.

>>1383524

I thought the delta in this case stood for dispersion (or uncertainty), i.e standard deviation of, not changes in?